War Corporatism: The New Fascism

[Clara T]

War Corporatism: The New Fascism

A video by Simon Robson aka. Knife Party and friend, Barry McNamara. It's an animated look at the dogs of War Corporatism unleashed upon the world by Bush and the PNAC as stated in the September 2000 document Rebuilding America's Defenses.

Very Well Made Flash Video Here:

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article12017.htm

Spread the Word.

[leftstreet]

1. Very nice! Thanks for the link n/t

[Clara T]

2. War Policy, Public Support and the Media

In summary, as intimated by Clausewitz, the most important factor in tapping and shaping the “blind hatred” for an enemy that underpins public support for a conflict is aggressive, decisive national policy as reflected in bold actions to achieve clear, specific political and military objectives. Conversely, the absence of such focused and bold policy appears to be the primary factor that dissipates the resolve and focus of the people’s “moral forces.” It is also useful to note that such aggressive policy increasing the commitment of a people’s moral forces to the cause would include policy measures to demand participation and sacrifice from citizens on the home front in building the “battle sword” of overwhelming force, as well as to fund and produce the robust logistical support systems that are required in the execution of grand national policy to achieve military objectives.

In short, at the highest level the art of war turns into policy—but a policy conducted by fighting battles rather than by sending diplomatic notes. . . . No major proposal required for war can be worked out in ignorance of political factors; and when people talk . . . about harmful political influence on the management of war, they are not really saying what they mean. Their quarrel should be with the policy itself, not with its influence. If the policy is right—that is, successful— any intentional effect it has on the conduct of the war can only be to the good. If it has the opposite effect, the policy itself is wrong.42


http://carlisle-www.army.mil/usawc/Parameters/05summer/darley.htm

[Clara T]

3. Army War College

"There will be no peace. At any given moment for the rest of our lifetimes, there will be multiple conflicts in mutating forms around the globe. Violent conflict will dominate the headlines, but cultural and economic struggles will be steadier and ultimately more decisive. The de facto role of the US armed forces will be to keep the world safe for our economy and open to our cultural assault. To those ends, we will do a fair amount of killing."

http://carlisle-www.army.mil/usawc/Parameters/97summer/bunker.htm

[rman]

5. role of the US armed forces will be to keep the world safe for our economy

and open to our cultural assault.

Always nice to see when they're being honest about it.

[Clara T]

7. War Has Become The Economy

Contrary to initial expectations, the military-industrial complex did not fade away with the end of the cold war. It has simply reorganized itself.


As a result of a rash of military-industry mergers encouraged and subsidized by the Clinton administration, the "Big Three" weapons makers—Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and Raytheon—now receive among themselves over $30 billion per year in Pentagon contracts. This represents more than one out of every four dollars that the Defense Department doles out for everything from rifles to rockets.1

If they get their way, the new military-industrial behemoths will receive billions more in the years to come. The Clinton administration’s five-year budget plan for the Pentagon calls for a 50% increase in weapons procurement, from $44 billion per year now to over $63 billion per year by 2003 (see Figure 1). On issue after issue—from expanding NATO, to deploying the Star Wars missile defense system, to rolling back restrictions on arms sales to repressive regimes — the arms industry has launched a concerted lobbying campaign aimed at increasing military spending and arms exports. These initiatives are driven by profit and pork barrel politics, not by an objective assessment of how best to defend the United States in the post-cold war period.

In order to achieve an effective, affordable defense, it will be necessary to rein in the power and profits of the Pentagon and the military contractors. But before looking at the recent activities of the arms lobby, it is important to reflect on just how misguided the Pentagon’s current spending priorities really are.



http://www.fpif.org/papers/micr/introduction_body.html

[Raster]

9. God forbid.

[rman]

4. ...on the second day you will be assassinated, buried on the third.

That's what would happen to me to if i were to become president.

[Octafish]

6. Team B met its match.

The Truth.

Thanks, Clara T. That thing of your friends spells it out.

[Clara T]

8. Constabulary Duties

There is, as yet, scant empirical evidence to sustain the idea of an epochal shift in the objectives, means, and methods of warfare such as described here. What we do seem to have in abundance is increasing numbers of actual or incipient outlaws for whom existing social, political, and economic institutions are an impediment to the advancement of their private agendas, emerging technology that can provide them great advantages over conventional forces, and an almost total lack of scruples as to how the technology could be used. There also seem to be indications that law enforcement agencies and those whose duty it is to defend the nation "from all enemies, foreign and domestic" are increasingly unable to deal successfully with the rising potential for nontraditional forms of violence. Should they fail in their duty, the onus will not be on them. It will, as in centuries past, rest on those who are so heavily invested in the status quo--protecting profit and privilege--that it prevents them from shaping the new strategic policies that will enable soldiers and policemen to carry out their sworn duties.

http://carlisle-www.army.mil/usawc/Parameters/97summer/bunker.htm

[Octafish]

13. Thus we communicate, inform and enlighten.

Tell the truth about the Bush War Party.
Then the eyes pop open and see.
And the hands pop open and drop the trudgeons.



After they hear the whole story, the fists curl up and the spines stiffen as they frog march the turds to trial and the pen.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

10. "A ghastly molecule."

[Pharaoh]

11. Great!

K&R

[Clara T]

12. War as the Means and the Ends

"War, it will be seen, is now a purely internal affair. In the past, the ruling groups of all countries, although they might recognize their common interest and therefore limit the destructiveness of war, did fight against one another, and the victor always plundered the vanquished. In our own day they are not fighting against one another at all. The war is waged by each ruling group against its own subjects, and the object of the war is not to make or prevent conquests of territory, but to keep the structure of society intact. The very word 'war', therefore, has become misleading. It would probably be accurate to say that by becoming continuous war has ceased to exist. "

[Clara T]

14. Low-Yield Earth-Penetrating Nuclear Weapons

Low-Yield Earth-Penetrating Nuclear Weapons
By Robert W. Nelson



Fig. 1 Diagrams like this one give the false impression that a low-yield earth penetrating nuclear weapon would "limit collateral damage" and therefore be relatively safe to use. In fact, because of the large amount of radioactive dirt thrown out in the explosion, the hypothetical 5-kiloton weapon discussed in the accompanying article would produce a large area of lethal fallout. (Philadelphia Inquirer/ Cynthia Greer, 16 October 2000.)

Despite the global sense of relief and hope that the nuclear arms race ended with the Cold War, an increasingly vocal group of politicians, military officials and leaders of America's nuclear weapon laboratories are urging the US to develop a new generation of precision low-yield nuclear weapons. Rather than deterring warfare with another nuclear power, however, they suggest these weapons could be used in conventional conflicts with third-world nations.

Critics argue that adding low-yield warheads to the world's nuclear inventory simply makes their eventual use more likely. In fact, a 1994 law currently prohibits the nuclear laboratories from undertaking research and development that could lead to a precision nuclear weapon of less than 5 kilotons (KT), because "low-yield nuclear weapons blur the distinction between nuclear and conventional war." Last year, Senate Republicans John Warner (R-VA) and Wayne Allard (R-CO) buried a small provision in the 2001 Defense Authorization Bill that would have overturned these earlier restrictions. Although the language in the final Act was watered down, the Energy and Defense Departments are still required to undertake a study of low-yield nuclear weapons that could penetrate deep into the earth before detonating so as to "threaten hard and deeply buried targets." Legislation for long-term research and actual development of low-yield nuclear weapons will almost certainly be proposed again in the current session of Congress.

Senators Warner and Allard imagine these nuclear weapons could be used in small-scale conventional conflicts against rogue dictators, while leaving most of the civilian population untouched. As one anonymous former Pentagon official put it to the Washington Post last spring, "What's needed now is something that can threaten a bunker tunneled under 300 meters of granite without killing the surrounding civilian population."

Statements like these promote the illusion that nuclear weapons could be used in ways which minimize their "collateral damage," making them acceptable tools to be used like conventional weapons.



Fig. 4 The 100 KT Sedan nuclear explosion, one of the Plowshares excavation tests, was buried at a depth of 635 feet. The main cloud and base surge are typical of shallow-buried nuclear explosions. The cloud is highly contaminated with radioactive dust particles and produces an intense local fallout.

http://fas.org/faspir/2001/v54n1/weapons.htm